The article seems determined to assign a single cause as the reason for the timing of the surrender when I think it is quite more likely that it was an accumulation (and a rapid one at that) of serious developments that precipitated that end.
Claiming "Stalin did it" when there had also just been an atomic attack and an entire summer of horrendously devastating attacks, that the Japanese were almost powerless to defend against, on cities not to mention the ever tightening noose of allied encroachment throughout the region and the anticipation of an imminent final invasion, just seems like someone is trying to come up with a catchy article title... not honestly looking at the situation.
Article writers don't come up with the headlines. In this case the headline does the author a bad disservice by making his piece seem simple-minded. It isn't. Its strongest parts come before he even gets to discussing the Soviet invasion. Those are (a) his dissection of the timeline by which surrender unfolded, and (b) his case that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not outliers in the destruction of Japanese cities and thus not game-changers in the minds of Japanese leaders. When he does turn to the Soviet invasion, his argument isn't that the Japanese surrendered because they were overwhelmed by it, but rather because it closed off their remaining strategic options.
Agree or disagree, these are serious arguments that deserve to be met with more than platitudes and belief-repetition.
I'm starting to think not many people actually read the article. Though to be fair, the first 3 or so pages are just build up, and I almost ejected out of skepticism, too.
Claiming "Stalin did it" when there had also just been an atomic attack and an entire summer of horrendously devastating attacks, that the Japanese were almost powerless to defend against, on cities not to mention the ever tightening noose of allied encroachment throughout the region and the anticipation of an imminent final invasion, just seems like someone is trying to come up with a catchy article title... not honestly looking at the situation.